State v. Ramon Larios-Mendoza

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 44084
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 808
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 7, 2016
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
RAMON LARIOS-MENDOZA, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Minidoka County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified life sentences, with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty years, for rape and lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,
affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ramon Larios-Mendoza pleaded guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(1), and lewd
conduct with a minor under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508. For each charge, the district court imposed a
unified life sentence, with twenty years determinate, to run concurrently. Larios-Mendoza
appeals, contending that his sentences are excessive.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
1
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho
722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Larios-Mendoza’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
2